You would think that any piece of legislation that wins a 246-168 majority of the votes of the House of Representatives would be on a fast track to become law.

Passing pro-life legislation though, whether it be the earlier ban on partial-birth abortion, or the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PreNDA)–a bill to make it unlawful to perform or coerce a sex-selection abortion–is never easy. Like a complicated dance step, it often requires one step back, before taking two steps forward.

First, the one step back: Under the fast-track procedure utilized by the House majority, a two-thirds majority was required for passage of PreNDA. Although the legislation was supported by a strong majority, the actual vote fell short of the two-thirds required.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) went all out against the bill, warning House members on May 29th not to vote for it. A vote for the bill would be “scored,” the abortion provider said, as a vote against “women’s health.”

That same day, the Huffington Post reported that “no Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortions (Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Illinois).” What this means is that PPFA will happily perform–for a profit–a sex selection abortion, except where it is illegal. And, of course, PPFA is absolutely opposed to making it illegal, and will work to defeat any congressman who votes in favor of doing so.

But, as I say, I believe that we have taken two steps forward. First, the vote on PreNDA has exposed dozens of Democrats, along with a handful of pro-abortion Republicans, as pro-abortion extremists. After all, what else are we to call those who favor abortions performed for the sole purpose of eliminating unborn baby girls because of their sex?

Another person that the vote caught out, like a deer in the headlights, is the President himself. In a statement obtained exclusively by ABC News late May 30, the White House acknowledged that President Obama opposed the bill.

Of course, we have all known for a long time that the President was pro-abortion, but it is good that he has now, once again, reminded the American public just how extreme his views on this matter are.

There is, after all, an election coming up. President Obama himself, along with the minority of 168 House members who voted against the legislation, will now have to explain to the voters why they abandoned those who are victimized by sex-selection abortions, namely, coerced women and their unborn daughters.

The voters have a right to know why these congressmen buckled to pressure from pro-abortion groups. Did they do so merely because it was politically expedient? Or do they sincerely believe that we should allow the worst form of sex discrimination imaginable—a discrimination that kills—in the name of “choice”?

I have long supported the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act because I know, from personal experience, that little girls are being targeted for abortion in the Asian American community. And I also know that their mothers are often coerced into abortions they do not want by pressure from husbands and in-laws.

Now the American people, thanks in part to the recent vote, are beginning to understand this as well. One recent poll, conducted by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, showed that 77 percent of Americans (and 80 percent of women) supporting PreNDA’s ban on sex selection abortions in the U.S.

I believe that PreNDA will become law after the next election, when some of the congressmen who bowed to pressure from Planned Parenthood have been replaced by those who are willing to protect victimized women and their unborn daughters from sex-selection abortions.

Then it will be time to turn our attention back to defunding the merchants of death, starting with the organization whose name is synonymous with abortion, Planned Parenthood.